Month: January 2018

OK, so I’ve seen all but one of the 2018 Best Picture nominees and what do I think? I haven’t seen “Call Me by Your Name” yet because I don’t particularly like the subject matter. I think it has a small chance to be a dark-horse winner but I haven’t heard that much buzz on its chances of actually winning Oscars. I’d say it has a one in ten chance. As far as “Phantom Thread” goes, Daniel Day-Lewis is a great actor but the film ix boring and not particularly relevant to our current cultural and political climate. I don’t think it has any chance.

“Get Out” is a terrific movie that made a lot of money but does a low-budget horror satire have any chance at Best Picture? I would say no; a better chance is in the original screenplay category. “Dunkirk” is real good for a big-budget studio war movie, successfully employing unusual techniques to emphasize the experience of war rather than the historical details of it. It will probably win a lot of technical Oscars but not so much in the big categories.

“The Post” is Spielberg’s best film since “Munich” but it only got 2 nominations for Best Picture and for Meryl Streep. The newspaper-themed film “Spotlight” won two years ago and I think that’s why “The Post,” a very good and timely movie, will be shut out.to win.

“Lady Bird” is an excellent coming-of-age comedy but I don’t think it’s going to win because not enough people saw it. Also, comedies almost never win Oscars. It scored a lot of nominations, though, so it has a 15 percent chance.

“The Darkest Hour” is the third-most likely movie to win. Audiences love the Gary Oldman performance and the way the movie dramatizes history. The problem is that the screenplay and directing are not considered to be as good as Oldman’s performance. Nevertheless, I think it has a 20 percent chance of winning.

“The Shape of Water” has really resonated with critics with its mixture of fantasy, horror, romance, and social commentary about the 1950’s. The acting and the monster are great, but the movie may be somewhat overrated. I think it has Best Director for Guillermo del Toro all sewn up, with only Greta Gerwig of “Lady Bird” providing real competition. However, I don’t think it will win because it’s a kinky monster movie, and not something that voters traditionally go for. I’d give it a 25 percent chance of winning, or second best.

That leaves “Three Billboards outside Ebbing, Missouri” as the most likely winner, and a highly deserving one too. It has the best acting and writing of any film this year and it’s highly socially relevant. It is controversial for how it deals with race relations, but it’s a great, nearly flawless and very entertaining film. With a 30 percent chance of winning, it is the Oscar Frontrunner! Yay!

Wagner published a very controversial essay which criticized Jewish people, for having turned music from a patronage type deal into a business for profit. It was banned for some years. Critics feel it was a vile, possibly Nazi-ish type spiel. I, being open minded, have no stake in pro or anti-Israeli bias. I read wide, and can make up my own mind.

In some ways, Wagner predicted the rise of corporate music industry. He claims that music peaked with Beethoven in the romantic era and has gone downhill since. That marked the transition from art form to music industry. He says in the old days the musicians (probably Chopin) he references, relied on patron saints, and didn’t really play for the masses in any corporate sense. Wagner sings high praises for Bach, in particular, who he calls the father of music. Also he speaks highly of Mozart. Mendlesson and Berlioz, are two composers Wagner rips on. Its hard to not hear Ride of The Valkyres playing, loudly in the background, while he rips on these guys.

Other charges are that Wagner says Jews have a flat affect, which he deems un-passionate. Claims they are shallow , fleeting musically, and without emotion. Further blames bi-lingualism for making their language skills watered down , essentially. Says they use their rep as an oppressed people to advance themselves, meanwhile have become the upper classes. Obviously Wagner creates many over generalizations, some of which he tries to obscure using a ‘cultured’ Jew v. ‘uncultured’ Jew model.

Much of the essay is hard to accept by today’s standards, because Wagner is frank and brutal about stereotypying, which possibly does his own case a disservice. His overall thesis, however, stands – that is if you can separate his having blamed the decline of music quality overall to the Jews, and instead consider this as instead the larger corporate context. Watching former crack dealer JayZ winning the Grammies year after year, for mindless slurring, is a prime example in the modern day context. Meaning, its not evil Jews playing that Katie Perry and crummy Justin Bieber song. But it is some elitist executive type making the decision of who will get radio play. Its not in the hands of the college kids, and younger people themselves as to what they will be exposed to, like in the days of the garage bands, but rather profit seeking higher-ups who control the industry.

Wagner gets really nasty, saying he doesn’t like the Jews cause of this and cause of that, and plays the old Rothchilds cards. Also says Jews cannot do anything with passion cause its just about $ for them. Its a very interesting read, and its ironic to see that controversial debates about the culture being too commercial, as well as the involvement of the Illuminati, have persisted since Wagner’s era. It is a highly provocative essay, which is probably worth reading to get an idea of that era’s cultural thinking in Germany, in a historical perspective.

Chagall is an artist I was somewhat unfamiliar with, though I have gone to art galleries all over the US and Europe. I picked up his self-illustrated auto-biography recently. It is his life story written out as a poem, accompanied by sketches of his humble upbringing, in somewhat surrealist fashion. It recalled memories of things I had learned in my eastern European history class at U.C. Davis. What impressed me much, was this artist’s simple upbringing. Chagall wasn’t good at anything at all, except for art. Worried he would be a failure, he married the first local girl he ever kissed, after growing up in some tiny town. The synagogue was the center of his somewhat insulated life. Meanwhile, his parents scorned him for choosing to be an artist, instead of something more traditional.

Throughout the work, people are ready to kick his ass for being a Jew. Sometimes he runs, other times he claims he is not Jewish. Some lady sleeps with 25 troops , just to get to the store to buy flour. Stores are often ran-sacked. Born in Belarus, he borrowed a friend’s papers to get out of town, and go to Paris and St. Peteresberg. In Paris he scours the Louvre, getting influenced by the great artists. In Moscow, he set up a school where he taught orphans how to be artists. The reach of the USSR permeates throughout his existence, reminding me of how much many Eastern Europeans (like in Czech where I visited before) really hated and resent the Soviet Empire’s domination of their people’s.

Partly, what makes this book interesting is its authors takes on the other great artists, such as Picasso and Matisse. This book shows how he took their influences and blended them together to create his own art form, something critics like Wagner would say amounted to a watering fown of the art form. When Chagall returned home after WWI to Belarus, then he learned he had become famous. Ultimately, his takes on cubism, sculpture, and oil paintings, helped break through traditions, and led to modernism in art. His art had an undertone of yearning and loss, as well as surrealistic elements, which were ahead of their time. At the same time, his artwork seems very humble, always sketching out details of his local upbringing in a small town. He lived in a great age historically, dominated by Trotsky and Lenin. The entire autobiography is written in a somewhat poetic fashion, and is an achievement in originality. After having read this great artist’s take on art. We will next turn towards Richard Wagner’s (more) controversial opinions on art in an upcoming column.

Humans is a British show about artificial intelligence, currently in its third season. This show has gone under the radar a bit. But it shouldn’t have. The plot is that the average suburban family in the future has a domestic android to help with the kids and the housecleaning. Chaos ensues, as people test the limits of the robots capabilities. Husbands and wives begin sleeping with the bots, behind each other’s backs. Sometimes they malfunction, and have to be put down. But the kids are attached to the bots, and shield them or the bots flee. A robot even commits suicide. There are also robot brothels.

Meanwhile, in a further experiment, other bots have gained higher consciousness. William Hurt makes an appearance as the former mad scientist’s buddy, who tries to shield one of the more advanced models from capture.

Many ethical questions ensue. If a robot is asked to kill another robot, will it kill them, or turn on the humans? Also what do robots want, to conquer humans, or to be human, and be adopted by a family? Are the robots influenced by abuse, to where they resent humanity? Are they responsible for their actions, or do they not know any better (when they malfunction)? How do robots feel about having been created simply as part of an experiment, rather than in some sort of divine creation?

This show answers all these questions, and more. After nearly completing the first season, it appears the show is saying the average person is so cruel and heartless, that the bots can teach us something about humanity. The show seems to imply that maybe humanity does not deserve to live.

While many Americans are freaked out that the government shut down, I, on the other hand, am overjoyed! Who needs the federal government anyway? Being diabled, all I want to do is get in my power wheelchair and run over some able bodied homeless people, and the government should stay out of my way! What has the government ever been good for anyway? Schools? Our schools suck! Welfare checks? Anyone who needs those isn’t fit to shine my shoe! Let’s not forget taxes! Everyone hates taxes! Think of it; think of the possibility of no federal taxes! Wouldn’t that be great? Imagine a world without politicians! Aren’t you in heaven already at the thought? You can say what you want when you want, if there’s no government! You can get wasted anytime you want! Play loud music 24/7! Hit on women without fear of government reprisal! Skip school! Make fun of the fat kid! Travel anywhere in the country at any speed! Swear all the time! Start your own government! Walk around naked! Grab a girl’s boobs! Tell terrible jokes! Show a horror film like Texas Chainsaw Massacre to little kids and give them giant sodas! Start an anarchist motorcycle gang! Start your own church and declare yourself a god! Have a Rob Schneider film festival, complete with sexbot hostesses! The possibilities are endless! Join me, Dave the Degenerate, on a quest to keep the government shut down! We can do better and be freer! Yeah!

Basically the appeal is said to be the ‘kink’ factor. One glance at your local Craigslist Casual Encounters will reveal that many localities are completely flooded with ads for homosexuals and transsexuals. Not only are the ideas of transsexual sexbots repugnant, in the sense that it encourages a twisted view of sexuality, but sexbots will not be economically viable, due to the superabundance of degenerate low-life trannies, that are readily available, unfortunately.

Do you ever feel like the world is just kind of slapping you around from one situation in life to the next, like you don’t belong anywhere with anyone? Or that people sometimes bounce off each other in dramatic ways: some succeed, some die, others fade into obscurity.

I recently finished an interesting book called Pinball, by Jerzy Kosinski. Supposedly, it was written for the Rolling Stones guitarist Keith Richards. The author is a Polish guy who was on the way to Polanski’s the day the Manson family killed them. He only wrote five books or so and is a cult author, known for so many revisions and being compact in his writing style. The author is like a well kept secret. And as the book shows, sometimes our secrets can be liabilities.

The plot involves a love triangle, which involves a number of pianist (performers) and composers. The main ploy is one of them is a very famous but reclusive composer, whose identity remains unknown. Throughout the book, the link main emphasis is on sex as a catharsis release of energy which then engages the creative spirit. Chopin is brought up as a sick but pertinent example. The author demonstrates tons of knowledge of classical up through modern synthesizer music. And a bit about early rock and roll. He does this historically, as well in terms of performance art knowledge. The love triangle is very intimidate, because the lovers are affecting each others musical compositions or performances, so that each act of lust takes on a higher meaning.

The climax of the book results in a final bloody and fatal feud, not unlike American Psycho crossed with a Tarentino script. The author is clearly a musician and probably sexually obsessive himself. The honesty of the writing style gives it power and purpose. In an age where the slightest touch on the ass of a hot female will result in the Gulag, reading a book such as this, or 1984, reminds one of the importance of the human touch, and the ability to freely associate and express oneself , free from tyranny.

Democrats on the Hill tanked the Dream Act Bill this week. They had promised to work towards drafting a bill which would legalize the children of illegals. This was a campaign promise by the Dems, based on one of their major voting constituencies. However, when push came to shove, and Trump was finally willing to sign DACCA, the Dems created a red herring diversion, by reigniting debate over whether “Trump is a racist”, by creating dubious press leaks regarding what was said behind closed doors in a bipartisan meeting.

What emerges is a weird situation in which Trump is once again championing the little guy against the establishment and Big Brother. By showing mercy towards the Dreamers, Trump is exposing that the left eats its own. That the left does not actually want Dreamers to be legalized, but chooses rather to hold them hostage, in order to use them as a voting block is apparent. Why else would they promise so much, and then do so little? Meanwhile they perpetually profit from this issue.

Trump may ironically take this issue off the table for them by issuing some form of executive order (reprehensible to many people on his own side). By taking away Dem. issues, Trump strategically exposes how left wing rage is manufactured by the government media complex. Shows on MSNBC demonstrate that their hosts have no regard for the Dreamers themselves, but only seek political gain by grossly exploiting the very people they purport to help.

A famous French actress (Denueve) and 99 other French actresses, have signed a letter stating that the hysteria against Harvey Weinstein has now turned into a “Puritanical” witch hunt and has gone too far. They say the ‘Me Too” movement demonizes men and challenges sexual freedom of expression. Hatred of men is the basis of the movement, according to them.

We have also pointed out that all of Weinstein and Spacey’s unreleased flicks were censored or withdrawn prior to release. Clearly, freedom of expression by men is under fire by elitist female. The timing of this hysteria coincides with the Star Wars release which outlines a futuristic matriarchy styled society. James Franco is their next target, as Ally Sheedy (a mediocre over-rated actress at best in her prime) came out against him on Twitter. And Michael Douglass has a target on his back ( as if he needs to harass women to get laid!).

Since this scandal hit I have stopped flirting with women, and the ironic thing is that since men are now afraid to flirt or hit on women, now all the women are being super aggressive, and are hitting on men. Women should watch out what they wish for in terms of role reversal, since women have always had a free ride with the paternalistic system (yet complained about it). In a matriarchy the men will sit around and do nothing and do all the complaining, while waiting for women to ask them out. Meanwhile, women will be starved for attention and will be doing all the hard work in terms of employment, while men will do what women used to do – namely: MOOCH OFF THEM.

Bring your tomatoes. The movie about Churchill looked empty. However, Insidious The Key, which leads off with a dad beating on his four year old daughter, then further abusing her by locking her in the basement with demons is doing big business. Prior to beating her the dad asks the daughter to say there are no ghosts, but the daughter likes to get abused (I suppose). We get the usual creepy basement with demon claw hand emerging shots. Then the mom comes down to check on daughter, and gets hung to death by some weird electrical chord (ya! really believable!!). And the child wakes up like 90 years later looking super old, though she died in a previous film. And she is drawing the demon and writing ‘turn the key’, as if she is retarded or something and needs to be writing this down due to lack of intelligence. I have given up on keeping track of the timeline of this series. I cannot in good conscience recommend a film that is essential child beating and demon porn. I walked out 5 minutes into the film and got a well deserved refund. There was a large audience there who seemed to enjoy the film.

Films like the Exorcist were good because they dealt with the battle between good and evil, and the crisis of faith which allows demons in. Insidious and Paranormal Activity are totally failures substantively, because they fail to address the spiritual gap in America which has led to the corrosion of virtue, and lead to the worship of darkness, power, and evil. Instead of priests being called and family members taking up faith, we get a bunch of psychic mediums, who probably couldn’t even predict a stock market rally or a ballgame outcome. These psychics are frauds, and what they see in their visions are merely illusionary lies made by demons, which further opens doorways to more demons. The film actually realizes this and puts it into the plot, which makes it intelligent on one level at least. However the overall goal of the series legitimizes child abuse, and encourages false new age crap that we all know to be lies like psychic BS (paging Miss Cleo!). I personally have strong intuition, but I combine it with faith and also do not presume anything. Medical studies of psychics such as card game draws and such have been shown to only give very slight statistical advantages to those with intuition. Enough to grind out consistent (but small) profits in the casino. But not enough to be omnipresent like a God, as in these films.

Demons are as afraid of light and gospel as non-Christians are of demons. When confronted with demons do not idolize them like in this movie. Instead look down upon them, for they are afraid to come out into the light. Fear no evil.

Or hell, if you wanna be evil, then at least do it consciously and go join those dang demons! Maybe they will kick you down some power or some shit. I am just sick of these wishy-washy in between psychic people. Choose a side already please!

In the meanwhile, if you wanna scare yourself, go listen to some Slayer, or something that doesn’t involve making money off watching four year olds take a beating. That’s really low-brow!